Headley’s revelation will take 26/11 case to ‘logical conclusion’

New Delhi, Feb 8 (IANS) David Headley’s fresh revelations on the 2008 Mumbai terror attack will help Indian agencies nail his Pakistani handlers and take the case to a “very logical conclusion”, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju said on Monday.

“It is already known who is involved in the entire case and where is the background of Headley’s working system and support. It will help us,” Rijiju told reporters here.

He was speaking after Headley testified before a court in Mumbai through videoconferencing from an undisclosed location in the US where he has been held for alleged terrorist activities.

In his revelations, Headley named Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed and said a “colleague” from the terror group, Sajid Mir, was his main handler.

Headley also told the Mumbai court that Mir was a suspected operative of the Pakistani spy agency.

He said he was “influenced” by Saeed to join the Lashkar before he took his first “course” on training with them in 2002 at Muzaffarabad – the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Headley, currently serving 35 years’ prison sentence in the US for his role in the Mumbai attack that also killed foreigners, also said he changed his name from Dawood Gilani to David Headley in 2006 so that he could enter India and set up some business.

India blames Pakistani terrorists and the ISI for the attack that killed 166 people in Mumbai in a carnage that lasted for about three days from November 26, 2008.

Pakistan has been slow in prosecuting one of the Laskhar masterminds Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and his four associates who allegedly gave instructions to the 10 Pakistani attackers who sailed into India from Karachi.

Pakistan has attributed the slow progress in the case to the lack of evidence in nailing the five accused.

India now believes that the Headley revelation will help in proving its claim that the Lashkar militants were involved in plotting the attack.

“It will lead us to a very logical conclusion of the case,” Rijiju said. “The difference between the state and non-state actors will come to an end after this statement.”